Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Peshitta-Peshitto variants
#1
I have some notes, but I wonder if anyone has a somewhat complete list of the variants between the 22 books of the Peshitta and the Western versions of these books.

For example Hebrews 2:9 in the Eastern text has [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0hl0 Nm r=s[/font] "apart from God".

But the Western text has [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0hl0 htwby=b[/font] "by the grace of God".

It would be nice to see a full list of these variants.

Thanks...

Otto
Reply
#2
ograabe Wrote:I have some notes, but I wonder if anyone has a somewhat complete list of the variants between the 22 books of the Peshitta and the Western versions of these books.

For example Hebrews 2:9 in the Eastern text has [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0hl0 Nm r=s[/font] "apart from God".

But the Western text has [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0hl0 htwby=b[/font] "by the grace of God".

It would be nice to see a full list of these variants.

Thanks...

Otto

Shlama akhi Otto,


check out the difference between Hebrews 2:16 in the Eastern and Western. basically the same idea is conveyed, but very different terms are used. for some reason i can't post the correct font right now.... <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: -->

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#3
Here is the list of variants I collected.

Matthew 6:32
Matthew 21:4
Mark 14:31
Luke 22:17-18
John 7:53-8:11 (pericope adultera) Omitted in Eastern texts, present in Western.
John 16:27
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 20:28
Romans 8:39
2 Thessalonians 3:6
2 Thessalonians 3:18
2 Timothy 4:22
Hebrews 2:9
Hebrew 2:16

And the last 5 books of New Testament (2 Peter, 2nd John, 3rd John, Jude, Revelation) are missing in Peshitta. But it is present in Peshitto. The last 5 books of Peshitto were translated from Greek.
Reply
#4
As you know, Pericope de Adultera isn't in Peshitta. Like Peshitta, Some Peshitto Manuscripts don't have Pericope de Adultera. As you know now, it wasn't originally part of Peshitto - Syriac manuscript no. 14,470 (5th century). But here is more information.

From William Norton's Book "A TRANSLATION, IN ENGLISH DAILY USED, OF THE PESHITO-SYRIAC TEXT, AND OF THE RECEIVED GREEK TEXT. OF HEBREWS, JAMES, 1 PETER, and 1 JOHN." (Page xliv)

"The account of the adulteress, John viii. 1?11, which is in many Greek copies, is absent from most of those of the Peshito. Bishop
Walton printed it in Syriac from a copy in the library of Archbishop Usher, but said that it was absent from all preceding
printed editions. In Dr. Lee's edition, and that of Ooroomiah, lines are placed across the page at the beginning and end of the
passage, with evident intention to show its absence from the copies followed."
Reply
#5
I also want to add that Some Peshitto Manuscripts agree with Peshitta on Hebrews 2:16. But other Peshitto manuscripts don't. This show few changes were made to Some Peshitto manuscripts. Unlike Peshitto, Peshitta stayed the way it is. William Norton's Book "A TRANSLATION, IN ENGLISH DAILY USED, OF THE PESHITO-SYRIAC TEXT, AND OF THE RECEIVED GREEK TEXT. OF HEBREWS, JAMES, 1 PETER, and 1 JOHN.", Murdock's Translation of Peshitto, Etheridge Translation of Peshitto agrees with Peshitta on Hebrews 2:16.
Reply
#6
konway87 Wrote:I also want to add that Some Peshitto Manuscripts agrees with Peshitta on Hebrews 2:16. But other Peshitto manuscripts don't. This show few changes were made to Some Peshitto manuscripts. Unlike Peshitto, Peshitta stayed the way it is.

Nice, short and to the point.
Reply
#7
Thanks, Paul.

I am also posting this information here so that people can acknowledge the importance of Peshitta.

From Page 137 to 183 (William Norton's Book), we see Peshitto-Syriac Translation of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John.

In Page 139 (Hebrews 2:9) on Origen's comment about this verse.

(a) Ver. 9. Instead of the words rendered, " by the gracious favour of God," other Syriac manuscripts have two variations. The Greek does not seem to be correct,
because the exaltation of Christ did not determine the object of his death. A reading older than the time of the Nestorians, was mentioned by Origen, who died about
A.D. 254. It is, "For he, apart from Godhead." Some Nestorians adopted this reading. The Jacobites seem to have altered the position of " God," to suit their creed. They
have in their copies,?" He, God, in his gracious favour, tasted death." The Peshito edited for the B. and F. Bible Society, partly by Dr. Buchanan, and partly by Dr. Lee,
and which is founded on some ancient manuscripts, has the reading given above, which differs from that of the Jacobites only in the position of the word " God."

As you known Origen live from late 2nd century to mid 3rd century (185 AD - 254 AD). Origen died 132 years before Nestorius (386 AD - 451 AD) was born. So the idea that Hebrews 2:9 is a Nestorian modification to Western manuscripts is wrong.
Reply
#8
More info about Hebrews 2:9.

(From William Norton's Book about Peshitto-Syriac Translation of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John, Page xxxix.)

"Theodore bishop of Mopsuestia, a celebrated Greek writer, who died about A.D. 429, said that some persons had removed the reading, " without God," and had substituted, " by the merciful favour of God. He said also that the context shows that the apostle was not speaking of God's mercy, but of the relation between the Deity and manhood of Christ. (See Tischendorf's 8th edn., under Heb. ii. 9.) Tischendorf says, "From these testimonies, it is certain that the reading, without God, did not originate with the Nestorians ; for Origen found it in his copies," There is no reason, therefore, to suppose that the Nestorian text of the Peshito in Heb. ii. 9, is the result of any
change made by them ; but there is reason, on the contrary, to regard it as part of the original text of the Peshito ; and a proof
that the Greek copies which had the same reading in the time of Origen were correct."

These are evidences that elevate the importance of Peshitta. Church of the East preserved Peshitta beautifully.
Reply
#9
Akhi Konway,

The very slight alteration in the Jacobite copies of the Peshitto for this reading is of immense significance. With just this tiny alteration to their text, the Monophysite creed (that God Himself "died", khasli) is justified. This occurred precisely for that purpose. I can't imagine a more innocent or reasonable explanation, like a simple scribal error. This is clearly an addition. It is not much different from what the JWs did with John 1:1....with "a god". With one simple English letter/word, they have completely altered the meaning. Christian branches have been altering scripture to suit their theological agenda from the beginning, this is nothing new. It's partly the reason why we have hundreds of Greek variants, and thousands of English variants.

+Shamasha Paul
Reply
#10
konway87 Wrote:Church of the East preserved Peshitta beautifully.

Akhi, preservation of an original text is very easy to do. The CoE doesn't really deserve any credit here. It's really mindless work, all you're doing is copying letter-for-letter. The most difficult part would be staying interested and being careful enough to not allow for scribal mistakes, like spelling errors, to creep in. But it really is a trivial matter. The copies are going to turn out pretty much identical with the originals, even through several iterations.

Translations, on the other hand. Translations are a different beast altogether. Even today, I'll go back and regret the way I worded something in the Interlinear, or see a mistake that I made. I can't tell you how many times that has happened. I could go back a thousand times and still find a good reason to revise it. We can see this in action with the multiple revisions that are made to versions that we know to be translations, such as the NIV or King James.

Now imagine the state that the Greek texts are in. At some point, prior to their becoming an official version (which stabilised things somewhat), the textual history is in complete disarray. You can hardly find two manuscripts that read the same way. Why? Well, they're translations. They naturally went through an evolution with certain readings being corrected, others being introduced later, etc.

The very state of the textual history will testify to whether a document was originally penned in that language. The Aramaic is relatively stable (especially the eastern copies), whereas the Greek is wildly divergent. One acts the part of an original, the other a translation. It's rather easy to tell and recognize.

Now, if the Greek textual tradition was relatively stable while the Aramaic copies varied wildly, well then I would be a Greek Primacist. It would be obvious which is the original and which the translation.

The forensics speak volumes...textual CSI.

+Shamasha
Reply
#11
Hello Paul,
I agree with you. I posted this, because I noticed that some people had confusions about these verses (Hebrew 2:9, Hebrew 2:16). And they didn't know which one is original? Peshitta or Peshitto. I wanted to show them that Peshitta is the best manuscript. Thanks to Norton's wonderful book, they won't have anymore doubts.

if I translate something from Aramaic to my language (Malayalam), I will tell people that my Malayalam work was translated from Aramaic. But the thing that bothered me is that Western Tradition tried to make it look like Greek is the original. And they gave the impression that Aramaic is nothing but a translation of Greek. As you know, that is one of the reasons for the destruction of several Aramaic manuscripts including Peshitta manuscript in South India.
Reply
#12
Shlama Akhi Konway. Yes, what the Portuguese did in India is inexcusable. Remember Coonan's Cross.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coonan_Cross_Oath">http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coonan_Cross_Oath</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#13
Yeah, Jacobite and Orthodox Churches in Kerala teach every student at Sunday School about Coonen Cross Oath.

One of the things that bother me is the use of God in Today's Kerala. In Malayalam, the word for God is Daywam. Notice the similarity between Aramaic "Daywa" and Malayalam word Daywam. This Malayalam word for God was borrowed from Sanskrit. This word bothers me a lot. So I use Alaha for God. Orthodox Church use Western Aramaic "Aloho" for God. But nowadays they also use Malayalam word for God. I think that is a major problem.

I think all of these problems started developing since the destruction of Peshitta in Kerala. Although Western Peshitto is available in Malayalam, still there are lots of people who need to understand the importance of it. Because of Portuguese, Greek ended up in Kerala. So Many denominations teach Greek. I think Jacobites and Orthodox are the only denominations who are familiar with Peshitta and Peshitto. But even Jacobites and Orthodox are ignoring Peshitta now a days. That's the sad part.
Reply
#14
konway87 Wrote:I think Jacobites and Orthodox are the only denominations who are familiar with Peshitta and Peshitto. But even Jacobites and Orthodox are ignoring Peshitta now a days. That's the sad part.

Don't forget the still native Church of the East in India!

http://www.churchoftheeastindia.org/

+Shamasha
Reply
#15
Yeah, I forgot about it.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)